After Krüger: observations on some additional or revised Justinian Code headings and subscripts*) Der Beitrag stellt Ausschnitte aus Handschriften zusammen, die seit der Ausgabe des Co- dex Justinians 1877 durch Krüger entdeckt wurden, und die Ergänzungen oder Korrekturen an Inskriptionen und Subskriptionen ermöglichen. Die Handschriften sind P. Oxy. XV 1814 (C. 1,11,1-1,16,11 [first edition]), MS Cologne GB Kasten Β no. 130 (C. 3,32,4-12), PSI XIII 1347 (C. 7,16,41-7,17,1), P. Rein. Inv. 2219 (fragments of C. 12,59,10-12,62,4), MS Würzburg Universitätsbibliothek M.p.j.f.m.2 (C. 1,27,1,37-1,27,2,16 and 2,43,3-2,51,2), MS Stuttgart, Württemb. Staatsbibl. Cod. fragm 62 (C. 4,20,12-21,11). This article summarises details of manuscripts identified since the standard 1877 edition of the Justinian Code and containing additions to or revisions of headings and subscripts. The manuscripts are: P. Oxy. XV 1814 (CJ 1,11,1-1,16,11 [first edition]), MS Cologne GB Kasten Β no. 130 (CJ 3,32,4-12), PSI ΧΠΙ 1347 (CJ 7,16,41-7,17,1), P. Rein. Inv. 2219 (fragments of CJ 12,59,10-12,62,4), MS Würzburg Universitätsbibliothek M.p.j.f.m.2 (CJ 1,27,1,37-1,27,2,16 and 2,43,3-2,51,2), MS Stuttgart, Württemb. Staatsbibl. Cod. fragm. 62 (CJ 4,20,12-21,11). I. Introduction - Π. Sixth-century manuscripts a) P. Oxy. XV 1814, b) Cologne GB Kasten Β no. 130, c) PSI ΧΠΙ 1347, d) P. Rein. Inv. 2219 - ΙΠ. The Würzburg fragments - IV. The Stutt- gart folio I. Introduction: Krüger's edition of the Justinian Code, which began to appear in annual fascicles from 1873, was complete by 1877. In fact there were two editions: the editio maior, with lengthy introduction and full apparatus criticus, totalling more than 1200 pages; and the editio minor, being volume Π of the Corpus Iuris Civilis, with an attenu- ated introduction and abbreviated apparatus'). This latter has remained in print, going through numerous near-identical editions, and so is the most usual resource for schol- ars. The large edition is much less common, and has only been reprinted once by Keip in a reduced format in 1998 as part of their series celebrating 100 years of the BGB2). The new Dutch parallel translation of the Code uses Krüger's original 1877 text5). Despite Krüger's edition being now 130 years old, the number of new manuscript witnesses for the Code that has emerged is slender, and these are generally short and *) An especial thanks goes to Wolfgang Kaiser for drawing my attention to the Würzburg and Stuttgart fragments, for supplying digital images of the manuscripts, suggesting additional bibliography and for making suggestions as to the readings of difficult faded passages (although I take sole responsibility for any readings printed). I should also like to thank Michael Crawford and Benet Salway for their advice and assistance. ') For the publication sequence of the fascicles of both maior and minor, see the bibliography attached to F. Schulz 's obituary of KrQger in: ZRG Rom. Abt. 47 (1927) xxxiii-xxxiv. 2) 100 Jahre Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Pandektistik 62. Olms-Weidmann for a long time had plans for a two volume reprint. Although this was abandoned, I believe it has been resurrected by Vico. 3) J. E. Spruit/J. M. J. Chorus/L. de Ligt, Corpus Iuris Civilis, Tekst und Vertaling VII: Codex Justinianus 1-3, Amsterdam 2005 and Corpus Iuris Civilis, Tekst und Vertaling VOI: Codex Justinianus 4-8, Amsterdam 2007. The first of these volumes reflects neither the Oxyrhynchus papvrus of Book One nor the Cologne frag- ment of Book Three. For criticism of the Dutch project for not reflecting important re- visions to Krüger's text, see the review of Codex Justinianus 1-3 by P. Néve in: ZRG Rom. Abt. 125 (2008) 735-739. Brought to you by | UCL - University College London Authenticated | 144.82.107.73 Download Date | 10/15/13 3:45 PM 424 Miszellen fragmentary, covering only a few constitutions or titles. This is not to say that a new edition is not desirable, and that existing manuscripts could not be used to produce it. Even more important, given that Code manuscripts, other than the incomplete Verona palimpsest, are largely deficient for the Greek constitutions and that the Greek texts have to be restored from later Byzantine legal materials, the production of the new edition of the Basilica and of other legal works in Greek will have a profound effect upon such an endeavour4). Certainly, with the Code not surviving intact and being to a considerable extent a reconstruction, new manuscripts of the direct Code tradition containing any additional information are at a premium, especially with regard to the headings and subscripts, those elements which became attenuated and then discarded in the high-mediaeval Vulgate tradition. Yet the amount of such material so far known is small. The few instances in which new (post-1877) witnesses provide fresh infor- mation on either the headings or subscripts of constitutions are here discussed. First are treated four sixth-century manuscripts. Next come the hitherto unpublished Würz- burg fragments, dating from the later eleventh century, from which I publish the titles, headings and subscripts. Finally I look briefly at the late eleventh-century Stuttgart folio. The eleventh-century Vallicelliana fragments are published elsewhere in this volume and the information from them is not repeated here. The abbreviations used here for manuscripts follow Krüger's apparatus, but the principal ones cited are: Ρ = Pistoriensis Arch. Cap. 106 (prev. 66); L = Parisiensis Lat. 4516; V = Veronensis LXII (60), the famous sixth-century palimpsest. The most im- portant of the early-modern printed Code editions and commentaries cited by Krüger is that of Haloander (Nuremburg, 1530). II. Sixth-Century Manuscripts: This section contains details of four manuscripts, three being papyri from Egypt (one certainly and one possibly being from the First Edition of the Code), and one a palimpsested parchment of unknown origin. a) P. Oxy. XVI814s) [CJ' l,ll,l-l,16,li;cf.CP 1,11,1-1,18,11; title rubrics and constitution headings only] This papyrus, first published in 1922, is well-known for giving us our most detailed glimpse of what the First Edition of the Justinian Code (the Novus Codex) looked like, and should be datable to the short period 529 to 534. Although it preserves just the rubrics of the titles and the headings of the constitutions of Book I, titles 11 to 16 (= 11 and 14-18 of the Second Edition), it gives a good idea of which material was added or subtracted in the later edition (the Codex Repetitae Praelectionis)6). Most 4) For some discussion of and suggestions regarding CJ Greek texts, see Β. Η. Stolte, The use of Greek in the Theodosian Code, in: A.J.B. Sirks (ed.), Aspects of Law in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2008, 77-94. Among other things, he proposes that the text restored for the lost Greek constitution at CJ 10,16,1 should rather supply the missing Greek law at CJ 1,26,6. s) M. Amelotti/L. Migliardi Zingale, Le costituzioni giustinianee nei pa- piri e nelle epigrafi (Legum Iustiniani Imperatorie Vocabularium Subsidia 1), 2nd ed., Milan 1985, 17-23; Corpus Papyroram Latinarum no. 101; Codices Latini Antiquio- res Suppl. no. 1713; R. Seider, Paläographie der lateinischen Papyri II, 2, Stuttgart 1981, no. 34. 6) The best discussion setting out the differences between the two CJ editions as revealed by the papyrus is still P. de Francisci, Frammento di un indice del pri- Brought to you by | UCL - University College London Authenticated | 144.82.107.73 Download Date | 10/15/13 3:45 PM S. J. J. Corcoran, After Krüger 425 famously the so-called Law of Citations was clearly present in the First Edition under the probable title De Auctoritate Iuris Prudentium (CTh 1,4,3 = CJ1 1,15,1), which was, of course, replaced in the Second Edition by the introductory constitutions of the Digest (CP 1,17 = C. Deo Auctore and C. Tanta). I discuss here the details regarding headings, but also highlight the differences revealed between the Novus Codex and the Codex Repetitae Praelectionis. CJ' 1,11,1: '[.. .]odoto'is all that is preserved ofthe heading of an otherwise un- attested constitution. The second text in the index, CJ1 1,11,2 (= CP 1,11,1), matches CTh 16,10,4, but the other three Theodosian constitutions before that (CTh 16,10,1-3) are not elsewhere present in CJ, nor do they have an appropriate addressee ending '-odoto' to twin one of them with our mysterious law. The addressee has been restored variously as Theodotus, Diodotus and even Theodoras7). Previously I speculated and rejected the idea that this constitution might represent the lost law of Constan tine ban- ning sacrifice mentioned by Eusebius (Vit. Const. 2,45,1) and implied by Constans (CTh 16,10,2)8). Tim Barnes has recently revived this idea'). The following text (CJ1 1,11,2 = CP 1,11,1) is headed '[imp. Consta]ntin. A. ad Taurum pp.'. Although this is wrong (the emperor is Cons tan ti us), it does show that there has been a change of em- peror between the two constitutions, otherwise the heading would have been *Id(em) A.'. Logically therefore, given the subject matter {de Paganis Sacrificiis et Templis), the emperor should be a pre-Constantian Christian emperor, i.e.